On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 15:59, Richard Kelsch wrote: > Les, thank you very much for the suggestion. However, I actually > think it would be a step backwards for me. Much of what I'm doing is > also "bleeding-edge" and I'd doubt some of the software that I need is > even contained in the enterprise trees, at least the versions I need. I'd expect about anything to work in Centos4 that works in FC3. There is a 'centosplus' repository containing some things missing from RHEL4 including a kernel with support for firewire, the filesystems dropped from RHEL, etc, and there are various 3rd party repositories that work with either RHEL or Centos. In most cases you could either use an FC3 rpm or rebuild it from the src rpm if you can't find a native version. > Unfortunately my "push" is probably similar in nature to the push the > FC team has. It's the same "push" most everyone else in the Fedora > community has. Seriously, by the time I'm ready to shove my PC into > my car, I want it to be at as up-to-date as possible. To some that > may be a bit "fanboy" but much of what I'm doing is new. I have the > freedom to not be locked into a production environment and can > experiment and tinker. In this case the experiment failed > spectacularly. The latest FC version is the right place to work on the project you want for next year - but then it doesn't make sense to complain about the not-quite-ready-for-prime-time parts... And, once it works you'll probably want to load it on something where you can expect updates for a fairly long time. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
